Archive for November, 2009

The Malaysian Chinese Association(MCA) was established on February 27 in the year 1947. It would be considered a uni-racial political party. It purports to represent the Malaysian ethnic Chinese. Therefore it can be considered as an association of Chinese persons who have organized themselves with the main aim, objective and idea of championing issues premised on the fact that the party would want to achieve certain set goals for the ethnic Chinese community’s benefit.

In collaboration with the United Malay National Organisation(UMNO) and the Malaysian Indian Congress(MIC) Independence was achieved from its colonial masters on the 31st. day of August 1957. These three uni-racial political parties over time together with the establishment of other mosaic political parties established the Barisan National(BN) which is the umbrella body under which the current government has been established after the March 8, 2008 general elections.

Since 1957, this is the first time after the March 8, 2008 general elections the government has been elect without a two- third majority in Parliament. The BN’s dismal performance had led to the MIC and the Gerakan party to being moribund. Ong Ka Ting the President of the MCA whilst being elected as a Member of Parliament did not accept a Cabinet Appointment and had mooted the idea that the MCA should re-invent itself or from his dismayed stand point should be resurrected.

During the period from August 1957 to March 2008 the MCA leaders have endeavoured to clamour through the BN that they are involved in a system of progressive government. The MCA has substantial holdings in Hauren Holdings through which it controls the Star Publication, the China Press, the Sin Chew Jit Pao, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Guang Ming Daily, based on the financial contributions of the business community. But yet its popularity ebbed and many of its leaders lost their state in Parliament and the State Assemblies.

This was owing to the fact that the Democratic Action Party(DAP) was its biggest rival in championing the cause of the ethnic Chinese apart from championing the cause of all Malaysians with its multi-racial policies which put the MCA leaders in a political quagmire.

As much as we know it, political parties will only survive in the intermediate where there is a popular will of the people in its favour which supports the government and its various institutions. The writing had been on the wall since 1998 after the unceremonious sacking of Anwar Ibrahim by Mahathir. It showed that the masses were not willing to accept the regressive politics played out by the BN. But over a period of time the Parti Kadilan Rakyat(PKR), the Pan-Islamic Party(PAS) and the DAP got their act together to work as a coalition and it resulted in the creation of a new political landscape.

This has resulted in the creation of a new government machinery in the States of Selangor,Perak, Penang and Kedak, whilst PAS continued to be in the government of Kalantan. Unfortunately, Najib has created a political morass in Perak which is now before the Federal Court for a decision to be delivered in due course.

On the contrary, whilst the opposition parties in the coalition of the Pakatan Rakyat(PR) are in the process of creating an evolution in the thought of the people endeavouring to destroy the hegemony of the BN system of governance, the voting populace should educate their unschooled intelligence in the field of politics, as it will only be for the betterment of the future of the nation as a whole.

This is to ensure that future appointed representatives for elected office are themselves thoroughly flexible persons. Apart from aspiring to be elected they should fully understand the underling purpose and the needs of the voting masses and the needs for the creation of a more civil and social democratic society, where all elected representatives should be held to be competent, accountable and transparent.

The question that arises against this backdrop is, does the leadership of the MCA represent the interest of its members or what does it stand for? Further do these MCA leaders have any sense of civicness or for that matter any sense of civic community?

It is imperative that the leaders of the MCA should be put on notice that for the better half of the past one and a half year the whole nation has had to endure almost on a daily basis nothing else but the leadership squabbles between Ong Tee Keat, Chua Soi Lek and recently Liow Tiong Lai.

As much as this comical drama for the struggle has been played out in the main stream print media and the alternate media, we the voting masses have observed that March 2008 was the Waterloo for the MCA. The ethnic Chinese have voted with their feet against the MCA. This is clearly apparent when a majority of the leaders like Chew Mei Fun and Tan Chai Ho and many others lost their seats.

Apart from the above facts it is a known fact of political life that it is the business community that contributes to the financial sustenance and support of any political party. But March 8, 2008 draws a different parallel. As they say there is not fraternal relations in politics and that one should put ones money where the mouth is.

Under the prevailing scenarios that are being played out daily it should not be to difficult to be presumptuous and conclude that the purported contemporary interest which the MCA progressively represented the interest of the ethnic Chinese prior to March 2008 has drawn to a close.

Based on the general observation of the urban ethnic Chinese and even the common ethnic Chinese man on the street and the villages they have no respect whatsoever for the leaders of the MCA. If that is actually the case, than, Ong Ka Ting had real foresight when he stated that the MCA should re-invent or resurrect itself.

With the above scenario in mind we do not need any political scientist to flood us with advice on how democracy should be installed. We have taken our first step in March 2008. The voting populace will follow it through. The MCA membership has dwindled and as an ethnic based party it has joined the rank of the MIC and is moribund. The MCA may in the process of time be only a party with a leadership but no sustainable membership.

For far too long we have witnessed that political power has been essentially situational as it has been tied to a particular issue of race as determined by UMNO and wholehearted supported by the MCA and the MIC and other mosaic component parties of the BN.

We have now come to the cross-roads where the voting populace are aware of the particular conception of power and are now able to raise questions through the alternate media as to who would benefit or not and how to suggest and influence decisions to be made by the party leaders.

In this premise we the people recognize that there should be a limitation to the government’s power and discretion on the rule of law, the laissez-faire of social and economic policy which should be the characteristic of democracy. On the other hand the government whilst having specific institutions to maintained law and order, it should recognise the peoples liberties such as to the freedom of speech, association and assembly, which should not unnecessarily be limited by the powers that be.

As Abraham Lincoln said: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” And consequently the voting populace who put the politicians into office should not be put into the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications by any government, lest they be voted out of office.

Since November 2007 the ethnic Indians in Malaysia have come on the stage to actively participate in politics. There have mushroomed approximately 8 political parties claiming to champion the cause of the ethnic Indians

One may wonder whether this is a blessing or a curse for the larger section of the ethnic Indians who have been marginalized by the Barisan National Government for the last 52 years.

There have been many a news reports about the registration and membership growth of these parties. First let us stipulate what is the membership as claimed by the respective parties which is based on the figures as published in the news reports.

Samy of MIC claims to represent 2,500,000 members

Kayveas of PPP claims to represent 1,300,000 members

Murugiah claims to represent 157,231 members

IPF claims to represent 320,245 members

Kimma claims to represent 300,057 members

Makkal Sakti Party claims to represent 2,100,000 members

Human Rights Party claims to represent 1,500,000 members

Hindraf claims to represent 2,200,000 members

Nallakaruppan claims to represent 250.782 members

TOTAL 10,628,315 members

Therefore the ethnic Indian parties in total have amongst the 8 political parties a total membership of approximately 10.6 Million members.

There seems to be something amiss with the above figures. Either the party leaders have discovered like Albert Einstein’s relativity theory of E=mc2 a new arithmetic theorem or they have not learned to count or they have some other form of members, not known to us.

This is owing to the fact that the demographics of Malaysia according to the ethnic groups that comprise of the population are estimated at approximately 28 million. The Peninsula has approximately 22 million and the East of Malaysia has approximately 6 million people. The population breakdown is as follows:

34% of the population is under 15 years of age.

The Malays and Bumiputras make up 65% of the population.

The Chinese make up 26% of the population.

The Indians make up 8% of the population.

The other unlisted ethnic groups make up 1% of the population.

Therefore with the above information we are now in a position to determine what would be the number of the people who would be able to participate in the political activities of the various ethnic based political partied. If 34% of the population are under the age of 15 years of age, then from a population of 28 million, we are left with about 18,400,000 people. Based on the above racial breakdown, the figures would be as follows:

For a 18,400,000 million ,

65% of Malays and Bumiputras make up 11,960,000 million.

26% of Chinese makes up 4,784,000 million.

8% of Indians makes up 1,472,000 million.

1% of other unlisted ethnic groups make up 184,000 thousand.

Now here is where we find the myth in respect of the claim made by the leaders of the various ethnic based Indian parties. The ethnic Indian population stands at 1,472,000 million. So how can these leaders represent a total of 10,628,315 million members.

There is yet another factor which has to be taken into account, to determine as to what would be the actual strength of the membership of these mosaic ethnic Indian parties.

This is owing to the fact that the DAP, PKR and the Gerakan also have a substantial number of ethnic Indians as members of their parties. Then we also have a large pool of intellectuals and professional and others of ethnic Indian origin who are independents and do not join any political parties.

Under these circumstances we can conclude that it is inconceivable that based on the nature of the above presented factual scenario these ethnic Indian politicians may have created sex and birth without a brain and a womb to have and represent such a membership where the births have not been registered in the National Registration Department.

On the other hand there could be a remote possibility that these ethnic Indian political leaders have started to recruit their members from the new science which arises from the human mind, called “Noetic” science. This science comes from the Greek word for intuitive knowing or human science.

This science is based on the premise of establishing a subjective experience of humanity’s inner life, in particular about the perennial wisdom of the great religious traditions and the Gnostic groups.

Even though this field of study of the science it is still in its infancy this science may be able to establish that the human soul consist of energy and matter as they are intimately connected. As the equation E=mc2 translates to: energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.

It may be possible to establish that when death intervenes the energy in the brain moves on. And maybe the ethnic Indian parties leaders have enlisted all the energy that has moved on after death has intervened based on the principles in “Neotic” science, as their members. This may be one explanation for the 10,628,315 million membership or they have discovered a new equation which has yet to be made known to the world.
.

On 19.10 2006 a Mongolian model known as Altantuya had her body blown up by the use of C4 explosives. This explosive is not available even to the police force. It is in the custody of the Ministry of Defence. Najib was the Defence Minister at that time.

Abdul Razak Baginda(ARB) a political strategist was a close associate of Najib, sought Najib’s assistance when Altantuya came to demand for her commission on the submarine deal she had assisted as an interpreter with the French company. ARB had also an affair with her.

Najib instructed his aide to assist ARB. The aide assigned Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri(AH) and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar(SAU) to assist ARB. At the same time ARB had hired P Balasubramaniam, a former special branch officer as his private investigator to follow and report on Altantuya’s activities in Kuala Lumpur.

For the brutal murder of Altantuya ARB, AH and SAU were charged in court. ARB was acquitted and discharged without his defence being called. AH and SAU were sentenced to the gallows for killing Altantuya.

Subsequently P. Bala made a Statutory Declaration(SD) on how Najib was involved in the murder of Altantuya. The next day Bala claims that under duress he was compelled to sign a 2nd. Statutory Declaration and confirm that the contents of the 1st. SD was false.

Now we have the video presentation of Bala which was made and posted in the web site of Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini. There were three prominent Lawyers present at that interview.

It appears that Najib has through his brother Nazrim paid Bala RM750,000.00 of the RM5 Million for the 2nd. Statutory Declaration, which is indeed a false declaration made under duress.

The facts are clear. One of the Statutory Declaration is false. Section 191 of the Penal Code (Act 574) states:

“Whoever, being legally bound by an oath, or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.”

The question is, why are the Attorney General(AG) and the Inspector General of the Police Force(IGP) behaving as though they are incapable of taking any form of action on these shocking revelations made by Bala in the presence of three prominent lawyers?

Why has there been no prosecution or charge preferred under Section 200 of the Penal Code(Act 574)?

Further why has Najib, Rosmah, Nazrim, Deepak, Suresh and the lawyer Arunampalam not rebutted the allegations made by Bala in his revelations to the three prominent lawyers about the falsity of the 2nd. Statutory Declaration or the revelations of Bala.

What seems to be the irony of the current prevailing state of affairs of our leaders of the Government is that, Najib, the AG and the IGP on the surface appear to be successfully unjust men holding onto rather grand and powerful positions, whilst the general populace of right thinking people find them to be totally dishonest.

There is nothing left for the populace to admire or envy the occupants of the office they hold. These dishonest holders of the high office have ended up in the refutation of the people as merely squalid and miserable addicts of power where any unschooled man with intelligence and taste would openly despise them.

Its is pointless for Najib to waste the tax payers money to propagate his illusory 1Malaysia Concept when he has yet to convincingly clear his involvement in the brutal murder of Altantuya. Of all people Najib should realize that only a life of justice can offer the structure and order that are needed to make any life worth living in Malaysia.

Najib, you should first and foremost believe in yourself. Stop being a megalomaniac as the world sees you. You are not even capable of making Malaysia a better place to live in and you are still unable to clear your name from being involved in the brutal murder of Altantuya but you make yourself a fool by announcing in Washington that “Malaysia can help make a better world.”

Najib, how can you be ready to play a role to make it a better world when your own people and the world have a perception that you are involved in the brutal murder of Altantuya.

We are fully aware of your ambivalence for power and at the same time you have exhausted all your illusions. So far as the Altantuya murder is concerned you have merely made bare denials and bald statements. As the Prime Minister of this nation we demand that you proof to us that the facts as asserted by Bala do not exist. If you do not do so we are entitled to conclude that you were involved in the brutal murder of Altantuya.

It that is the case, it would be appreciated if you just tender your resignation as the Prime Minister of Malaysia. It is better that the just and wise be allowed to rule this nation , even though they maybe unwilling, rather than let you and your henchmen who are actually dying for power to rule this nation and in the process turn it into a banana republic.

Since February 5, 2009 the legitimacy of the holder of the office of Chief Minister of the State of Perak has been in limbo. The matter finally was heard by the Federal Court on November 5, 2009. The fundamental gist of Nizar’s Solicitors argument was:

“Show us any provisions in the Perak Constitution empowering the Sultan of Perak to sack Nizar.”

To digress a little, it is a known fact that in the discipline of physics properties and interaction of matter and energy are known to be in a state of flux, which means in a continuous succession of change. The discipline of sociology or the term “social engineering” would relate to the study of human society and human social behaviour. It could be referred to and called “the study of the logic of the situation.”

But than in the discipline of law which is referred to as jurisprudence which is the study of the science or philosophy of law there is an old Justinian code that states:

“Justice is the constant and perpetual purpose of rendering each man his due.”

Against this backdrop let us see whether the Judges of the Federal Court will keep the streams of justice pure and clean.

Zambry Kadir’s Solicitors case:

Zambry’s solicitors and the Attorney General called upon the court to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal. They submitted that Zambry is the lawful Chief Minister(CM). He was appointed by the Sultan under Article 16(2) of the Perak Constitution.

Nizar’s Solicitors response:

Not so soon said Nizar’s solicitors. Zambry may claim he is the lawful CM. He has to discharge the burden of proof, as under the Evidence Act 1950 under Section 101 he who asserts must proof. Zambry must prove that the office of Nizar as CM was indeed vacant or Nizar was validly and constitutionally sacked by the Sultan.

“ There are two situations where the Governor ( or the Sultan as the case may be) may exercise his absolute discretion namely (a) on the issue of the appointment of MB or (b) withholding consent to dissolve the State Assembly.”

Further Harley CJ had rightly cautioned and inter alia stated:

“ As regards to (a), nobody could be so foolish to suggest that a Governor could appoint a second Chief Minister while there is still one in office….”

Nizar’s solicitors submitter that it was plain and obvious that until November 5, 2009 Zambry was not able to proof that the office of the MB held by Nizar was vacant. Neither was Zambry able to proof that Nizar was legally or constitutionally removed by the Sultan.

Zambry’s Solicitors response:

Zambry’s solicitors and the AG submitted that Nizar had by a letter dated February 5, 2009 requested the Sultan to dissolve the State assembly. As such under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, since the Sultan had withheld his consent to dissolve the Assembly, Nizar and the Exco Members have no other options but to resign en bloc.

They further contended that Nizar in his letter to the Sultan had stated that there was a deadlock in the number of assemblymen of the Barisan National(BN) and the Pakatan Rakyat(PR) which was equal, namely 28 each. The seats of the three defected assemblymen have been duly declared as vacant by the Speaker.

They further argued that by conceding that the numbers on each side was equal, that if a vote of no-confidence was to be carried out, Nizar would definitely be defeated. This argument was premised on the fact that the Speaker (Sivakumar) could not cast his vote under the Perak Constitution. Hence, they argued, that Nizar would lose by one vote.

Nizar’s Solicitors responded:

Nizar’s solicitors responded that before Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution could be invoked and applied, there must be cogent proof that Nizar had indeed lost the vote of no-confidence of his peers in the State Assembly.

Further, Nizar’s solicitors submitted that that it is not disputed in the case which is before the Federal Court that hitherto, Nizar has not lost any vote of no-confidence. This is simply based on the fact, that no such vote was ever carried out at any time. Thus the condition precedent of Article 16(6) was not met by Zambry.

Nizar’s solicitors further submitted that historically speaking, as far as the issue of the MB’s removal from office is concerned, the constitutional convention endorsed the practice of casting the vote of no-confidence which has to be held in the State Assembly. Apart from the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan, the downfall of the PAS government in Trengganu in 1961 was another case in point.

In 1959, PAS captured the state of Terengganu. It formed a colition government with Parti Negara. One Daud Samad was duly appointed as the Mentri Besar. However the lifespan of the government was short. On October 26, 1961 the Information Chief of UMNO declared that three assemblymen from PAS and Parti Negara had defected to the Perikatan’s team. On October 30, 1961 a vote of no-confidence was duly passed by the Terengganu State Assembly evidencing the demise of Daud Samad as the MB of Terengganu.

The attempt by Daud Samad to request for the dissolution of the State Assembly was rejected. The Sultan instead appointed Ibrahim Fikri of Perikatan as the new MB.

The aforementioned historical precedent demonstrates that the Sultan only made a decision refusing to dissolve the State assembly after a vote of no-confidence was duly passed by the State Assembly. If this precedent was duly observed, would we have to see what we have seen in Perak?

On Zambry’s argument that Nizar would lose the vote of no-confidence on the basis that the Speaker (Sivakumar) could not cast his vote, the solicitors replied:

Yes, constitutionally speaking Sivakumar, being the Speaker, could not vote. However nothing bars him from stepping down as the speaker when voting really takes place?

What shall bar him from becoming an ordinary member of (the) State Assembly and in turn exercising his right to vote if UMNO is confident enough of bringing a motion of no-confidence against Nizar?

Nizar’s solicitors submitted, if UMNO is too foolish, it may appoint another state assemblyman from its side to replace Sivakumar and if this really happens, a vote of no-confidence against Nizar will remain wishful thinking.

So, when Nizar refused to resign, the solicitors submitted, was the Sultan given the power to sack him?

Zambry’s solicitors said “YES” the Sultan has the power.

Nizar’s solicitors replied: show us any provision in the Perak Constitution giving the Sultan such an express power.

Zambry’s solicitors submitted that the Sultan was “deemed” to have such a power.

Nizar’s solicitors retorted: show us the said “deeming” provision enshrined in the Perak Constitution. Of course, no such deeming provision exist.

Nizar’s solicitors then went on to submit that there must be a deeming provision in the Perak Constitution stating in no uncertain terms that when the MB refuses to resign, his office is deemed to be vacant by the operation of law.

At this stage, Nizar’s solicitors quoted a very clear example of such a deeming provision in the Perak Constitution. Article 19(1) in Part 2 of the Perak Constitution is such a classic example. The said Article expressly provides that the Sultan is “deemed” to have vacated his Throne if he fails to attend the Senate meeting for a very long period without sufficient or reasonable grounds. You will notice that no such deeming provision exists as far as the removal of the MB is concerned.

In the closing remarks, Nizar’s solicitors submitted that under Article 16(7) of the Perak constitution it expressly provides that, unlike the State Executive Council Members who hold their positions at the pleasure of the Sultan, the MB’s office is not at the pleasure of the Sultan.

Therefore, any suggestions by Zambry’s solicitors that Nizar could be removed by the Sultan was, at best, fanciful and at the worst, smacks of power hunger on Zambry’s part.

It is clear from the arguments of both sides of the divide in this constitutional dispute that Zambry who claims to hold the office the MB legitimately, has to discharge the burden of proof. He has failed miserably to do so.

The Court of Appeal has erred in law when it dismissed Nizar’s appeal. The question that is in the minds of all right thinking people is, will the Federal Court decide based on the truth of the powerful statements made by both sides of the divide as to whether the Sultan of Perak based on the Perak Constitution is empowered to sack a sitting MB.

This case is a perfect example of the often quoted and broken maxim, Fiat justitia, ruat coelum which means “ let justice be done though the heavens should fall.” However there is another Malay analogy which says that here is a case of the kris turning on its owner.

It is clearly apparent based on the arguments raised by Zambry’s solicitors that they are clinging to the words of Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution. There is an old maxim which reminds us that “Qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice, which on being interpreted, means: He who clings to the letter, clings to the dry and barren shell and misses the truth and substance of the matter.

Therefore the five Justices of the Federal Court should not under any circumstance be the servant of the words used in the constitution. At the same time the judges should not be mere mechanics in the power-house of semantics. The words in the constitution are not a semantic paradox. Therefore the judges should be the ones who should be in charge of those words used in the constitutional document They should give the said provisions its plain and ordinary meaning and deliver a judgment of divine prescience and perfect clarity.

In this day and age we are able to see that all over the world that people are involved in a continuous struggle for social change. We have seen it taking place in the United States of America(USA) and in the recent past in Japan. We ourselves had for the first time in 52 years taken a step in that direction on March 8 2008.

With the march towards social change we as the voting populace are now wandering as to what our elected representatives actually stand for. Be it in the component parties of the Barisan National(BN) or the Pakatan Rakyat(PR), we have to painfully endeavour to understand and reflect upon what sought of society our elected representatives want to build.

It is imperative that our political leaders, from both sides of the political divide as it currently stands come to their senses and be of the realization that in aspiring for social change, that their political power, strength and effective representation should be clearly separated and should go beyond not just the ethic and moral divide but should as a whole encompass the ethnic, cultural, religious, nationalist, ideological, political and the socio-economic hegemony.

For some months now we have observed the disarray in both the component parties of BN as well as the PR where the acts and the conduct of the elected representatives leaves much to be desired by the general populace.

In the first place do these elected representatives ever realize that they were elected into office by the people and that their primary duty was to serve the people through their respective parties platform and endeavour to bring to realization and achieve what was stipulated in their election manifesto.

But what we are disillusioned about is the fact that instead of maintaining unity and solidarity within their respective parties, some of them like Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek of the MCA, Samy and Subramaniam of the MIC, Zulkifli Nordin of the PKR and Hasan Ali of the PAS, to name a few, have not shown that they can work in harmony within their respective parties social policies and attempt to build a collective leverage of power within their parties but sad to say have gone grossly beyond the boundaries of ethics, morals and decorum as is expected to be upheld as elected representatives.

They have failed to realize that the real strength of a political leader lies in their character and how they develop it. But instead of focusing their attention on building their character which is a self management process they have openly demonstrated to the world at large that they are just in the political game and are hungry for power. They fail to realize that without the vote of the people, political power is useless as Samy Valoo has learnt it.

All our politicians have to take the cue of what happened in the USA in November last year when Barack Hussein Obama was elected into office as the President. In 1957 when we achieved Independence from the British we did not have racial segregation on our shores.

Whilst in the USA the black man was segregated. He was not free and was isolated. Now the people of the USA have moved on light years ahead of us by electing Obama into office and we in Malaysia have moved backwards by having segregation of the highest order which is grossly in violation of the Articles of our Federal Constitution. Hence the need to camouflage our means of coexistence, with the 1Malaysia Concept which is moribund.

We do recognize that politics will always stay as politics. In any system of parliamentary politics there will always be the suspicion by one party against the other in respect of party politics and policies, and there will arise the need for the conquest of the power of the state.

As much as our political leaders would want to create new monopolies and privileges whilst having the power to govern, they should be cautious to utilize the political system and the various institutions of the state in concrete ways and not to disrupt the existing social structures and the fabric upon which it has been established.

Only upon this premise would the voting populace appreciate and give their wholehearted support to the government to govern which would ultimately and in the long run create a genuine and equitable democratic society. Nevertheless we can never create a utopian state as there will inevitably be pockets of resistance based on our cultural, religious and ethnic diversity.

As much as we have our intellectual independence we also treasure our freedom above all else as it is our basis of existence. As its often said that man is born to be free. But, what we are not able to comprehend is the unnecessary creation of dual or alternatives issues or problems being created within the PAS and the PKR by Hassan Ali and Zulkifli Nordin. As far as the MCA is concerned most of the voting populace has lost their faith in its leadership.

The enthusiasm for social change on which Hassan Ali and Zulkifli Nordin were elected and their current displayed of antics gives great cause for concern. We hoped that by voting for change of the status quo the old ways of playing the game would have eventually faded away.

But these two representatives have clearly demonstrated that not only they want to do business in the same old way as UMNO has done for the last 52 years but they have gone further by infringing upon the rights of other ethnic groups and have even challenged their own party leadership with impunity.

The antics of Hassan Ali and Zulkifli Nordin appear at first sight to be artificial attempts to gain political mileage by creating alternative issues out of the blue, but their radical phraseology used is now tending to alienate and intimidate the supports of the respective parties, they represent.

Anwar Ibrahim and Nik Aziz should not lose time and should create strategies and stress on the need for the need of absolute necessity of working in unity and that all the parties elected representatives must uphold the party policies and no one should ventilate a grievance in public. There should be a culture of unwillingness to directly cross swords with their leaders.

Only then will the PR be able to break the racial boundaries that have been built up by UMNO over the past 52 years. The issue of concentrating on bread and butter issues or neither should there be any attempt to preach to the people about the immorality of the countercultural ideas of free love. We are old enough as adults to decide what is right and wrong.

Instead of creating ideas which run contrary to the tide of history PAS, DAP and PKR leaders should help build strong democratic divisional leaders who will utilize their time and struggle to encourage cross ethnic unity and educate the voting populace on how they intend to use their political base and connections to attain achievable goals which would eventually build a better and more equitable society regardless of race or religion.

In today’s world which is without borders the idea of peoples power and solidarity being maintained with political leaders is extremely relevant and only then with there being such organic connection would the political leaders be able to immerse mass popular support for their party’s struggle. This form of strategy should be clearly centered to demonstrate to the voting masses that the political ideology is to empower the masses which would be a joint consensus for social change being brought to fruition.

From the dawn of civilization it has become an accepted fact of life that in order to maintain law and order, any individual in the society has to accept and follow certain rules, regulations and laws. It must be noted that a society is a massive external reality in which people of different races, religion, culture and traditions interact on a daily basis.

For that matter even the cavemen had codes or rules of conduct or for that matter the red Indians of the not too distant past or the aborigines of today who live not too far out from our major urban city centres.

The cardinal aspect for rules to be effective is on the basis that any human being regardless of his stature in a society that rules and procedures are set in place must adhere to those rules, for the society to function harmoniously. And consequently the rules upon being understood and followed, would replace his thoughts.

Why is this so? It is simple, as to how a child learns to perceive the image of the alphabets ABC and listens to the sound of the pronunciation of the alphabets, and there after only would be able to recognize the alphabets and also repeat it.

As time moves by the child as she grows would inevitably learn to conform to certain rules and gain an understanding to distinguish between what she can and cannot do. If and when the child wanders away from stipulated areas of what she is forbidden to do she knows or come to the understanding that she may be punished. Most children learn and seldom slide back into the depths of the valley of ignorance.

These same children grow up to adolescent and thereafter grown men and women. Some of them will aspire to become leaders in our communities be it in politics, business or whatever it may be. So like the leaders of today, these leaders must be the first to give recognition to the fact that they have in the first place to know the rules of the game and follow it.

When they know the rules of the game they would inevitably know what they can do and cannot do. As much as we all make a clarion call when the government uses the Internal Security Act and refer to the Federal Constitution in respect of our fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution being trampled upon, so we must like wise recognize that all reasonable rules, regulations and laws only exist to make our lives comfortable and safe within the community in which we live and work.

As much as we know that a man is not perfect, but even in his imperfection he can aspire to improve upon and bring about social change. In this respect social change can only be brought to fruition based on the support given to the leaders who champion the cause provided the people have faith in the cause. But the current antics of some PKR elected representatives, gives us a great cause of concern.

As much as we know, in any democracy an elected leader has power which is recognized by the masses. But then the leader or leaders who hold the position as elected representatives must realize that they are there to serve and other than the allowances which are provided and the privileges they enjoy, there would be little for the taking.

On the other hand these people who are political leaders must be able to convince the masses of not only their own party, to accept their leadership role but they must in our diverse society develop and formulate policies that are not religious based or racial based but policies that would and can be acceptable by the masses of the wider society enabling these political leaders to acquire reasonable support.

It is time that Anwar Ibrahim has come forth and issued the ultimatum to his party leaders and elected representatives that they should adhere to the party’s policies. Anwar of all persons should know that procrastination is a thief of time, but nonetheless the message should be loud and clear to all those elected representatives that they should reach out to the general voting populace and strictly adhere to the party’s policies of being multiracial and for all intent and purpose should not under any circumstance bring into play the issue of religion. If anyone does do so he should be sacked from the party.

In no way do we the supporters of Parti Keladilan Rakyat (PKR) take the ultimatum issued by Anwar to mean that PKR has crossed the Rubicon that separates the opportunist that stood on the party’s platform and found an easy passage to get elected based on the peoples perception for change and the current turbulent prevailing political scenario diabolically conceived and executed by Najib and UMNO who have an extremely large war chest which may have no bottomless pit, for the present.

We as the voters want to send a clear message to the PKR elected parliamentary and state representatives and aspiring divisional leaders who hope to be elected representatives, “DO NOT TEST OUR INTELLIGENCE” and stop raising the issue or fanning the flames of religion in an attempt to gain political mileage or kilometerage.

We can clearly distinguish between sincerity and good intention and based on our 52 years of the past experience we shall never in the future excuse the abuse of reason. Neither would we be amenable to a popular course which is filled with wisdom full of pranks. We do not have any more tolerance to mingle with political leaders with a portion of lightheartedness.

Therefore all the PKR elected representatives and divisional leaders are required to follow the rules of the party. If you follow the rules you will be safe. But in that case if you should think that you may not make much headway in the party, then by all means leave the party.

In order to make this issue of the granting of the preventive injunctive relief to the police understandable let us first refer to its meaning as provided for in the Little Oxford Dictionary. Injunction means: “ Authoritative order; judicial process restraining from specified act or compelling restitution.”

The Specific Relief Act does provide for the issuance of a “negative injunctive.”

What is not clear is whether the police applied for a “prohibitory order or an injunction.”

The simple reason for which this article is been written is owing to the fact that the police authorities are now going to the courts to unashamedly use the courts to exercise their inherent powers under the law as a tool to blatantly deprive the people from exercising their rights under the Federal Constitution, resulting in the peoples liberty being consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications.

If that is the case, based on the established procedure in law a party who has a cause of action can make an application to the court to obtain this equitable remedy with the caveat that the party making the application must conform to the well established maxim of the law of Equity, that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” which is to command the public to cease to exercise their liberty and freedom of movement or assembly within a certain specified time and a certain radius of the area where the Perak State Assembly is located or was it an injunction to restrain the public from maintaining status quo. But status quo cannot arise for the issuance of an injunction.

From what is reported on the alternate media it appears that the High Court granted the police before October 28 a “Blanket Injunction” to restrain the public for a specified period of time from assembling within a certain specified area where the Perak State Assembly is located so that the assemblymen could attend the said assembly and carry out their duties.

Assuming that the Perak police applied for an “Injunction” then the said application would have been made ex-parte and we wonder against whom was the application made. Further was it an ad interim injunction as it is generally called as a temporary injunction. Whatever was the colour of the application is not important. What is important is the fact, that it was made bona fides or in good faith.

As such the police should have made a full and frank disclosure of all the facts that were material for the Judge to without bias to evaluate the matter before him. Which means that the police should have affirmed an affidavit under oath, that all their acts (or purported future acts ) have been fair, and in their honest belief are free from any taint or of fraud or illegality, and are true.

In evaluating the matter which was in respect of restraining the liberty and the freedom of the people of Perak, the judge should have asked an all important question, that should he grant or not grant the “temporary” injunction and if he grants the injunction, “who will guard the guards themselves.” This is owing to the fact that the role and the responsibilities of the police is to ensure the safety of the people. They with all the fire power are above the reach of the ordinary people. So who was going to guard the police. May be the judge did not think about this matter.

We may presumptuously conclude that the judge may not have asked any of the above questions. It is clear that the judge has wrongly exercised his powers and has made common nonsense of the established principles of the doctrine of the law of injunction. Would it be wrong to conclude that the judge has been emotionally and intellectually dishonest and could this be a judicial misconduct?

Having had dealt with the issue of the temporary injunction let us now take a peep into the issue of a prohibitory order. What does prohibition mean. Under the Little Oxford Dictionary it gives the meaning as: “forbidding or being forbidden; edict or order that forbids; forbidding by law…..” As such it is well established in law that “prohibition” is an extraordinary specific remedy which is used for a distinct species of wrongs.

We must note that whilst an injunction never questions the jurisdiction as it only lies against the parties before the court, but a prohibition on the contrary takes no notice of the parties. A prohibition order does not take any interest a party may have which is the subject matter of a complaint or grievance. Once the order is issued it will command the person or persons to whom it is directed not to do something which by the suggestion of the police was in their affirmed affidavit informed the court about what the people are about to do. In this case it was the October 28 Perak State Assembly.

The question is, can the court regardless of who made the application, for an interim injunction or a prohibition order issue such an order against the general public? The answer should be in the negative. Even a person with an unschooled intelligence would be able to give an appropriate answer.

Why would this be so?

To put it simply, an injunction has to be addressed to a party and not against an entire community of people. It would be to preserve the status quo. And a prohibition order has to be directed against a specific act which has been perpetrated and the order commands that the party is to be restrained from continuing the act. But a court cannot act on a presumed grievance that the police have had a nightmare on, which would tantamount to acting on a common nonsense or a logical fiction.

As we all know that we are no longer living in caves. We live in modern times. Periodically we cast our votes at the ballot box to elect our leaders, who formulate reasonable policies that are acceptable to the majority of the populace. The judges of the courts are independent of the Government of the day. The judges are the guardians of our rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

The judges are to dispense with justice as justice is blind. But the public sentiment is that some of the judges are dispensing justice that is not blind. The judges must refrain from regarding political consequences with a subjective mind no matter how formidable the matter may be. The judges must be true to their oath of office and look at all matters objectively. If any of the judges for some reason are unable to decide matters objectively they should cease to be judges and should resign.

We the voting populace want to bring about a change in our system of government by evolution and not by a revolution. The judges should not be the last straw that broke the Camel’s back. If that happens a rebellion may be the final consequence. And at that point of time it may be too late for any of the judges to cry out “fiat justitia, ruat caelum” which means “Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.”

We as the masters of all politicians have had enough of the common nonsense demonstrated by all the established institutions of the government. It is about time that every one gets up from their slumber and pay attention to the peoples voices that are crying out from the wilderness, before it is to late.

Since March 8 2008 there has arisen a new modus operandi which has been displayed by the Royal Malaysian Police Force(RMPF). Many articles concerning the abuse of the powers by the RMPF all over the nation have been posted in the alternate media. The Editors of the main stream print media have become mentally impotent when it comes to reporting such wide spread abuse or they have been inflicted with a new age disease known as “abuse amnesia” which would translate to loss of memory on abuse.

The Federal Constitution under Article 5 explicitly provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” We do not have to remind the policemen that the Constitution is a supreme document which is above the Police Act and the Penal Code from which the RMPF derive the powers to perform their duties and responsibilities as entrusted upon them.

To be specific and to the point, the Police Act only provides for the manner in which the RMPF are to carry out their duties and responsibilities. The police are to maintain law and order so as to ensure that the people who live in the community in which they serve are able to enjoy their personal liberty and their rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

It is of common knowledge that other than the Constitution which states what are our rights, all other Laws promulgated by Parliament basically provide for provisions of what, we are expected not to do. Consequently, when we run foul of the law, the law has to be upheld at all costs and not on the basis of selective prosecution, which has now become the order of the day.

The cow head demonstration some months ago is now perpetually itched in our minds. The manner in which the demonstrators’ carried out their despotic acts of notoriety when they took along a blood-soaked cow’s head and paraded with it, with some of the protesters stomping and spitting on it, is ignominious and inglorious. They were fully aware that the cow is considered sacred to Hindus. But the policemen on duty just stood by and watched without taking any action.

The barbarians can be easily identified from the video recording. Why were they not arrested and kept in remand, for having to carry out the required investigations?

On the other hand some months ago the Officer in Charge of the Brickfields Police Station did act like a mad man or his acts were more akin to that of a lunatic who had just escaped from a mental asylum or he appeared to be more like a barbarian of the bygone era where the pirates who roamed and pillages the sea going vessels during the 13th. Century, when the vessels were passing the Straits of Malacca. He arrested a group of peaceful passive protesters carrying out a candle light vigil on the death of democracy. He even arrested Lawyers on Duty, who were there to advice their clients’

Then we had the arrest and detention of Thresa Kok under the Internal Security Act(ISA) based on a false police report made against her. A Chinese News Paper Reporter was arrested under the ISA for reporting a statement made by a politician, and based on public outcry was released within 24 hours, on a statement that she was arrested for her own SAFETY.

Now we are wondering, as to what is the nature of reality. We also wonder whether the police force only arrest people who are of the ethnic origin of Chinese or Indians or opposition politicians on frivolous issues.

Or is there a hidden agenda which has been hatched by the authorities to take no action when the people of the ethnic origin of Malays carry out barbaric acts. Or has Najib given the authorities his tacit consent for such dastardly acts to be perpetrated, to test the reaction of the other races and the opposition politicians and their tolerance level.

Since March 2009 the behaviour of the police in the State of Perak especially against our elected State Assemblymen who are from the Pakatan Rakyat(PR) Coalition, is inglorious. The October 28 video of what happened to the PR Assemblymen and in particular the Speaker Sivakumar only goes to establish the tragedy of the rape of the Perak State Assembly by Najib and the subliming pain faced by the PR Assemblymen and the low magic of a formal usurpation of illegal power, and how the police are glorifying the inglorious.

On the other hand Zambry seems to give the impression that all is well. Whilst the populace of Perak seem to feel that the tragedy in Perak gives it a pitiable and a terrible series of events and a palpably fictitious grandeur to Zambry’s holding of the office of the Chief Minister.

Now we have the Judiciary descending into the role and ensure that the police can have a blanket Injunction on a non existent act or cause or matter. The Judge does not seem to appreciate that an Injunction is an equitable remedy. Does this mean that virtue has flown out of the window and the judiciary have lost the strength and the will to act with impartiality So has morality become mere moralism and the Judges ethics mere feeble goodness.

If we claim to be as civilized society, we should all be aware that power always tends to corrupt. We also are aware and understand that in any civilized society there has to be in place a proper system for check and balances.

The Judiciary has and must be independent of the Government. The Judges are supposed to be the guardians of the peoples liberties and they must restrain from the abuse of power and must stand firm against the oppression of the liberty of anyone as provided for in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution in respect of the freedom of speech, assembly and association and as further declared under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations Organisation.

Therefore the “Unilateral” application of a blanket “Injunction” to restrain the exercise of our rights under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution , as applied for by the police before October 28 of 2009 was an application based on an illusion and the granting of the exparte Injunction by the Judge of the High Court was based on grounds which were not bona fides or good faith, but premised on a logical fiction. The judge must have been ambivalent and supported the presumptuous fears of the police who are heavily armed whilst the public and the opposition politicians would never in their wildest dreams have been able to arm themselves.

As such the Judge has committed a judicial misconduct by the granting of a negative Injunction. This absolute abuse of the power by the RMPF and the Judiciary and all the other Institutions of the State have only increased the strength and the staying power of the voting populace to concentrate on their pursuits to change the Government.

The confused and complicated Perak Constitutional tragedy was created by Najib who is widely seen as a megalomaniac has finally reached the Federal Court(FC). The panel constituted of five judges. They heard the arguments from both sides of the divide. The decision is to be delivered at a later date.

For all intent and purpose the FC or the Apex Court would have to give an interpretation to our Federal Constitution without any likelihood of bias. As Dicey wrote in 1885 when there was a social revolution in England which was accompanied by a constitutional revolution that “the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law are cardinal features of our constitution.” Thus the Constitution is known as the “Supreme” law above all other codes of law.

Only on that premise is laid the foundation of the structure on which the rule of the law is established and upheld.. Zambry appealed and the Court of Appeal which overturned and set aside the declaration issued be the High Court. It ruled that Zambry was the Chief Minister. Hence, this appeal to the FC.

The primary issue for the interpretation of the Federal Constitution, is the independence of the Judges which are the tenets and the keystone of any civilized nation. From the independence of the Judges and from judgements delivered with divine prescience and perfect clarity arises the point of certainty and justice of the law.

In this matter which is before the FC, it first came before the High Court on May 11. 2009 where Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaration to Nizar that Nizar was the legitimate Chief Minister of the State of Perak at all times

In Constitutional Law a declaration once granted should not be set aside. But here in Zambry’s case what we have is an unusual common nonsense at play. There has been a call by a illegitimate Government crying out for “more light” and the Court of Appeal gave the light to Zambry.

The issue before the FC is of Constitutional Importance. It revolves on the interpretation of the Perak State and the Federal Constitution. It also relates to the powers of the Chief Minister. Whatever decision that the FC delivers would have a multi-disciplinary effect on the people and the nation as a whole relating to the power of an elected government to govern as opposed to an appointed government by the Ruler of the State of Perak. After all the Ruler is only a symbol or figure head.

Herein arises the complication. Whilst the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia, it is higher than any other statutory law passed by Parliament. The Federal Constitution is the “Bill of Rights” of the people through which the people give their elected representatives the mandate to govern and to formulate policies for the proper and efficient functioning of all the other institutions of the state.

Therefore the FC should not take an ornamental or a pedantic approach to the giving of an interpretation to the provisions of the Perak State and the Federal Constitution. The FC should not embark upon an expedition of its own choosing, in giving its interpretation of the Constitution.

The FC should give the force of life to the dead letters of the Constitution as it is understood by the voting populace and the words and phrases as stipulated in Article 43(4) and 71(5) (a) which inter alia states: “in the case of every State, until the dissolution of the second Legislative Assembly constituted in accordance with those provisions or those provisions so modified” as provided therein or of the Federal Constitution. In the case of the Perak State Assembly, it was never dissolved. Therefore the Ruler by established constitutional convention has no power to order a sitting Chief Minister to resign.

What we expect is that the FC would give the simplest, most sensible and the most obvious interpretation which is most likely to be in accord with what is meant by the voting populace in its general aspirations and its adoption of why they go to the ballot box to cast their votes. As such there should be no war between what is provided for in the Constitution and the application of commonsense.

The Federal Court is the Apex Court. The Constitution to all people is a supreme document upon which we found our faith upon independence. It contains the fundamental road map for the fulfilment of all the actors rights in our society. As such, the Judges in Nizar’s appeal should not endeavour to play a game of hairsplitting and destroy the rhythm of the Constitution. We expect the Judges to give the simplest and most obvious interpretation. May the Judges give a sound decision without fear or favour.

As Socrates said: “Law is reason free from passion” so to must the five judges of the FC be free of passion, joy and sorrow in giving the words and phrases of the Constitution its obvious plain and ordinary meaning, as it is woven into the fabric of the constitution, as there are no creases to be ironed out.

If the judges fail to do so they would be destroying whatever little faith the people have in the judiciary which consist not in reliance of any special revelation or blind hope that they have for the judiciary but in respect of their devotion to the well laid out argumentative reasons set before the FC by Nizar’s Solicitors. The voting populace will not be swayed by anything less than a decision delivered with divine prescience and perfect clarity.

We in Malaysia are known to be a Democratic State. Maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to it as a “Dictated Democracy.” This is owing to the fact that there is no separation of the “economic” and the “political” sphere, as we believe that the Government has no business in doing business. Further the “Judiciary” is not independent of the Government but rather its slave.

We claim to be a capitalist society. But when we observe the role played be the Government, in particular, through the various incorporated “Government Linked Corporations (GLC), it is not to difficult to draw an objective conclusion that there is a tremendous amount of conflict of interest, which ultimately undermines the “ethics” and the role and the responsibilities of elected and appointed members of the Government.

We are all too familiar with the role and responsibilities of human beings, in the society or community in which we live, work, do our business or carry out our professional practice, carry out our duties and responsibilities to our family, our employees and to comply with all laws, rules and regulations as determined by the Government of the day, from time to time.

We are also aware that all of us are mortals and that no one is above the law, which includes the Government and the “Monarchy” as the “Law” is above us.

Therefore, when we consider the role and the responsibilities of a Government with the new found insight of the voting masses, we cannot stop intruding into the domain and the realms “ethics.”

Here we find that whoever becomes the “Government” of the day, it has to be committed to conscientiously follow the base line of an unwritten “Golden Rule” which advocates that one should do or not do to another, what one wishes to be or not to be done by.

This golden rule would translate and fall squally within what Abraham Lincoln said, and we Quote: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.” Unquote.

No doubt when we apply this golden rule across the wider spectrum of the society in which we live and interact with the interest of others, we would have to come to the realization that the rule obviously concerns itself with one of the very basic paradoxes of our human existence.

This is owing to the fact of life and reality, as each of us have a self-conscious individuality, as we all the time perceive and judge others or others judge us based on the state of a given state of affairs or occasion on the premise of actuality. We may do so by ceaseless interaction or without divine prescience.

But then, here we are not dealing with the issue of an individual but the Government of Malaysia. It is in respect of the Auditor General’s(AG) Report where there are findings that the various governmental agencies have given out closed tenders where the recipients of the closed tenders have “over-charged” the said agencies by some RM24 billion. Following that AG’s report, a statement was made by Najib based on his ceaseless egotistic prudence that “Another Task Force” would be set up to “study” the AG’s report.

As far as we the tax payers are concerned, the findings as stipulated in the AG’s report are conclusive. The AG is the “CHIEF ACCOUNTANT” of the government. We demand that the Najib and his henchmen in government show to us as tax payers at least some decency and a minimum altruistic sympathy, for the over paid RM24 billion.

This is owing to the fact that the persons who approved the closed tenders have abused the trust and confidence reposed on them and they have acted in a gross and a discreditable manner in which his government agencies and the persons responsible have grossly misconducted themselves or may have in the process unjustly enriched themselves, which in itself is a “criminal offence,” for which the Attorney General should contemplate and start investigations and proceed to prosecute those responsible.

Najib, do not be naïve, as we are all too familiar with the antics of the Barisan National Government. Do not think and act like an “Ostrich” by proposing to set up another task force, which as we all know is “SET UP BY THE UNWILLING TO DO THE UNNECESSARY AND THE UNWANTED.”

Najib, you should stop projecting the mental level of a child who will desists from pinching when it gets pinched in return. If that is not the case, why have you not instructed the Attorney General to prosecute those responsible? Or is this a passive way of achieving the target of the New Economic Policy.

It is time, Najib, that you be more insightful and responsible and do away with your egotistic prudence and act courageously with altruistic sympathy to recover the overcharged RM24 billion or ensure that all those who are found guilty in a court of law, are sent to jail.